1. School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
  2. ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course
  3. Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

 

Corresponding author:

Professor Nick Glozier  
Faculty of Medicine and Health,   
University of Sydney,  
NSW 2050,  
Australia  
email: nick.glozier@sydney.edu.au

 

Draft 23 October, 2021
Words 0
Tables 0
Figures 0

   

Declarations of interest: none.

Funding sources: This research was supported by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course (Project ID CE200100025)

 



Abstract

The effects of Australian government responses to COVID-19 (e.g., lockdowns) on economic uncertainty, psychological distress and suicide have been the subject of much modelling, debate and controversy. For instance, widely publicised models have suggested a median yearly increase in suicide rates of 9-25% – actual increases of 276-750 suicide deaths per year (Brain and Mind Centre 2020); which would mean Australia would account for almost 20 percent of the global suicide tally, which seems unlikely. A key factor in these models is the use of historical population-estimates of psychological distress acting as a final mediator of the effects of socio-economic factors such as job loss on suicide rates. However the historical temporal links between the economy, suicide and psychological distress have not been re-examined in the current pandemic, or in fact ever in Australia. The University of Maryland Social Data Science Center Global COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey, in partnership with Facebook, collects daily samples of psychological distress since the beginning of the pandemic in April 2020 from Facebook users throughout Australia and its States and Territories. These daily samples represent a unique resource with which to compare against the routinely collected estimates of psychological distress by the ABS and other sources (e.g., Taking the Pulse of the Nation), and may also support a detailed examination of the links between psychological distress and other factors such as unemployment and suicide.



keywords: depression, anxiety, mental health

















1.0 Introduction

There is much uncertainty around the immediate and long term impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) on economic security, psychological distress and suicide mortality in Australia. There is little evidence from previous pandemics as to their effects on these factors, and modelling has produced a wide range of results reflecting this uncertainty (Tang et al 2020 Insight).

Historically the suicide rate has changed over time in Australia as social, economic and environmental factors influence suicide risk. Such trends have provided useful information on instrumental factors, such as restricting access to means of suicide and reducing the risks posed by social or economic factors such as job loss. However the economic impact of COVID-19 also differs from previous economic downturns as it represents a disruption to supply rather than reduced demand. Given these novel conditions, the emerging empirical data on the current situation serves as a valuable indicator to inform our response.

Australia presents a useful case study on the effect of government policy response to the pandemic. Victoria, along with the rest of Australia, successfully reduced COVID-19 cases to negligible levels by early June of 2020 (as few as 3 new cases a day according to the 7-day trailing average, www.covid19live.com.au). However a second wave forced the State government to shut borders and reintroduce severe lockdown restrictions across Melbourne and surrounding regions in early July (July 7th). A state-of-disaster was declared on August 2nd 2020 with increased restrictions for at least six weeks. This makes Victoria a good case-study to examine the early impact of lockdown on community distress levels and suicide in 2020, relative to its historic trend or contemporaneous trends in other states such as New South Wales.


2.0 Methods

2.1 Sampling method

Global Facebook users were invited to take off-platform surveys of COVID-19-related symptoms. The survey and sampling strategy was designed by the University of Maryland Joint Program in Survey Methodology (Kreuter et al. 2020), and a brief description of the methods of the stratified survey collection can be found here. Every day, a new representative sample of Facebook users over 18 years old was invited to consent and participate via an invitation at the top of their Facebook News Feed and the surveys were conducted by the University of Maryland partner. Participants reported on COVID-19 symptoms, social distancing behavior, and financial constraints. The survey data is provided in granular but aggregate form (i.e., no response-level or person-specific data). Facebook provided regionally-specific weights to reduce nonresponse and coverage bias across age and gender. Thus the resulting aggregates can be treated as population estimates for each Australian region.

More details about sampling frame, stratification, and survey weight calculation to be added here…


2.2 Psychological distress

Psychological distress was measured by the following two questions adapted from the K10 (Kessler et al. 2003):

“During the last 7 days, how often did you feel so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?” (None, a little, some, most, or all of the time).

“During the last 7 days, how often did you feel so nervous that nothing could calm you down?” (None, a little, some, most, or all of the time).

We report the weighted percentage of people experiencing depression most or all of the time, as well as the weighted percentage of people experiencing anxiety most or all of the time.

The total number of responses for the depression and anxiety item from Australia in 2020 was Ns = 315,869 and 313,842, respectively.


2.3 Financial concern

Financial concern was measured by a single item:

“How worried are you about your household’s finances in the next month?” (Very, somewhat, not too worried, not at all)

We report the weighted percentage of people very or somewhat worried about their household finances in the next month.

The total number of responses for the financial concern item from Australia in 2020 was N = 311,532.


Unweighted percentages are also available. More details on the aggregated items can be found here. Unsmoothed and smoothed aggregates are shown for each item.



3.0 Results

Major dates in 2020 include the reintroduction of severe lockdown restrictions across Melbourne and surrounding regions on July 7th, 2020. A State of Emergency was declared in Victoria on August 2nd, 2020 with increased restrictions for at least six weeks. However the other States and Territories continued to enjoy relatively few cases and no restrictions.


3.1 Depression in 2020

Unsmoothed data


Smoothed data


3.2 Anxiety in 2020

Unsmoothed data


Smoothed data


3.3 Financial concern in 2020

Major dates in 2020 for financial concerns include the provision of temporary income support from April 27th 2020 of $550/fortnight (not shown), then reduced to $250/fortnight from September 25th 2020 (green dashed line below).

Unsmoothed data


Smoothed data


3.4 Depression in 2021

Unsmoothed data


Smoothed data


3.5 Anxiety in 2021

Unsmoothed data


Smoothed data


3.6 Financial concern in 2021

From January 1st 2021, the Coronavirus supplement was reduced from $250 to $150/fortnight. It ended entirely on April 1st 2021.

Unsmoothed data


Smoothed data


4.0 Conclusions

Depression and anxiety appear to be driven by lockdown dates, and may be more closely driven by case numbers (to be added). Financial concerns seem to be driven by depression and anxiety rather than the other way around - and government support seems to have little impact here.




5.0 References

Brain and Mind Centre. Sounding the alarm [Internet]. The University of Sydney; 2020. Available from: https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/brain-and-mind-centre/mental-wealth/sounding_the_alarm_usyd_ncphn.pdf

Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of general psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184–9.

Kreuter F, Barkay N, Bilinski A, Bradford A, Chiu S, Eliat R, et al. Partnering with a global platform to inform research and public policy making. In: Survey research methods. 2020. pp. 159–63.